Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Could the members of this list please address the questions themselves,
> rather than the questioner?
Kent Crispin has already done so with respect to ISOC.
> If you ask wether ISOC isn't more "qualified" than the ICIIU to organize
> the non-commercial constituency, shouldn't you also ask who is the more
> disqualified of the two?
>
It is precisely the question of "who is the more disqualified" that prompts
list members to debunk the "ICIIU". One has to question whether a
one-person operation can be considered an "organization" in any real sense
of the word, even if it does possess an easily obtainable Delaware
incorporation. By contrast, ISOC has a real membership composed primarily
of real individuals.
ISOC's NCDNHC application would be acceptable if it were modified to provide
for individual membership. It provides means for those who can not attend
face to face meetings to participate without resorting to proxy voting, and
defines "non-commercial" properly where organizations are concerned. On the
other hand, Mr. Sondow's attempt to redefine the term to exclude ISOC
without regard to his new definition's disenfranchisement of most charities,
museums, and arts and cultural organizations serves to completely disqualify
him as an organizer of non-commercial entities.
